Exactly Who Has The Problem?

January 28, 1997|By William Raspberry. Washington Post Writers Group.

WASHINGTON — Hawaii's citizens may be about to do what its Supreme Court refused to do: outlaw same-sex marriage. The state House already has approved a proposed constitutional amendment to ban marriages between members of the same sex. Approval by the state Senate would put the proposed amendment before the voters in November 1998.

The result could be--in effect if not in legal fact--the outlawing of same-sex marriage in America. Here's why: The U.S. Constitution, in Article IV, requires that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." That means that marriages legally performed in one state must be recognized by all the states.

Given the opposition to gay and lesbian marriage disclosed in one opinion poll after another, no state is likely soon to approve same-sex marriage directly. Hawaii did so indirectly when its Supreme Court ruled that denying licenses to same-sex couples violated the state constitution's equal-protection clause. Legislative attempts to reverse the ruling failed, and now opponents are trying to change the state constitution. The safest bet is that they'll succeed, and that will settle the question of same-sex marriage.

There is, however, another question that it won't settle. And that is, why are so many of us so adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage?

There are two obvious answers: that the dictionary definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family and that same-sex marriage is a violation of the laws of God.

The first doesn't present much of a problem in legislative draftsmanship. We already sanction marriages between people who have no intention of forming a family--senior citizens or infertile couples, for instance. The second, being religion, is more the province of the church than of the legislature. That religious authorities might choose not to recognize the legitimacy of a union between, say, a Zen Presbyterian and a born-again Hindu is no reason why a state shouldn't issue the license.

No, the polls suggest a repugnance that is more visceral than technical or religious--a distaste bordering fear.

But fear of what? That allowing homosexual marriages will increase homosexuality and perhaps even help spread such diseases as AIDS? But that makes sense only if you believe there's value in keeping homosexuality in the closet and that committed couples are as likely as casual sex partners to be promiscuous.

Fear that stretching the definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian unions will weaken marriage for heterosexuals? But how? Is the strength of my commitment dependent on the nature of yours?

Fear that homosexual couples will (gasp!) adopt children? And do what to them? Turn them gay? Leave them sexually confused?

I could, if I put my mind to it, come up with a fair load of evidence against same-sex marriage.

What keeps me from doing so is experience. I've known enough committed gay and lesbian couples to lose my fear that they are somehow dangerous.

And if they want to mark that commitment, by invoking the religious and civil forms used for the purpose, why isn't that a good thing? What are we afraid of?